|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2010 : 14:04:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If facts are hard to come by to support some position, then the rational response is to avoid taking such a position, not to whine about that position being challenged even though it was an opinion. "In my opinion" is not a magical mantra to protect a statement from critical examination, an examination which usually begins with looking for supporting evidence. If there is none, then the belief in question should be discarded, not excused as being opinion. (And this is especially true in political discussions.)
|
Dave, I blatantly plagiarized part of this paragraph for a discussion I was having in this post on a Pharyngula thread. Hope you don't mind.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/05/2010 14:04:39 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 16:07:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Dave's response to my remarks on the different meanings of opinion and statement of fact:
The argumentum ad Webster's has convinced me: opinions are utterly worthless in the marketplace of ideas. Given that it "is a self-evident truism" that people believe their opinions to be true, and given that an opinion is defined as being "a view or belief that is not demonstrable as fact," the assertion that a statement is an opinion is equivalent to saying, "I can't show that [statement] is true, but I believe it, anyway." In other words, "in my opinion" is a preface to a declaration of faith, and not, as I had previously (and obviously mistakenly) thought, just a shorthand for saying, "the following assertion of fact may not be as well-supported as I might like."
As someone who calls himself a skeptic, therefore, I will, from now on, seek to eliminate the word "opinion" from my self-references, and try to remember to point out anyone else's assertions of opinions as failures of critical thinking from the start. |
I appreciate your expression of agreement with my premise, even though you have adopted the pusillanimous posture of third person address. I understand you must remain consistent with your stated position that "I am through with you", but I will comment on your interesting elusion of my argument in the proximate, as I always have.| The argumentum ad Webster's has convinced me: opinions are utterly worthless in the marketplace of ideas. |
When one is asked for the justification of his opinion (or, alternately his statement of fact) on word usage and definition, Webster is pretty much the gold standard. The intended mockery in "argumentum ad Webster" falls rather flat because dictionaries and encyclopaedias are, de facto, the primary authorities for the meaning of words and their proper use and specific definitions.
As to, "opinions are utterly worthless in the marketplace of ideas", that is largely true if you see opinions simply as expressions of random thoughts. Some opinion is indeed just that. However most opinions that are given in the "marketplace of ideas" (where talk is cheap, but fact is expensive) are prefatory to a discussion of actual, alleged or imagined fact, and frequently if opinion is sufficiently elaborated, claim to fact is adequately challenged, and if authority is consulted when available; some actual intellectual progress can be made. Your obsession, of one sort or another, with "show me yours or we can't talk" does give me pause!
I might suggest you tune in more often to The Colbert Report or Saturday Night Live to get some tips on sharpening your "ridicule". Your belief that you had to (you didn't) explain it to Kil kind of lights up FAIL in this area. In any event, much of your intended sarcasm has more truth than satire in it.
Your selective reading habits obviously prevented you from reading this paragraph:| Every hypothesis begins as an opinion based on observation. It remains an opinion (or hypothesis) until is submitted to testing. It is fair to state that untested hypothesis is opinion. An untested hypothesis certainly is not a statement of fact! It is manifestly fair and reasonable to ask someone as to what observations have led to a hypothesis (or, interchangeably, opinion) |
In the same manner, "Opinion" is not only useful, it is mandatory in the early stages of the exchange of ideas. But to take a position as you have, that opinion, whenever expressed, is identical to a statement of fact is absurd on the face of it.
Darwin, Galileo, Newton; all had opinions on matters about which there were no facts, only observations. Their opinions became informed opinion, hypotheses, ultimately statements of fact (or very close approximations) after extensive observation, experimentation, and whatever worked as the hallowed "Scientific Method" in their day. But no scientist has begun exploration of a previously unexplored phenomenon without at least some nebulous opinions as to what he might find. And I will state the converse - few scientists have begun scientific exploration of some observation with statements of fact as to what it was they were beginning to determine.| Given that it "is a self-evident truism" that people believe their opinions to be true, and given that an opinion is defined as being "a view or belief that is not demonstrable as fact," the assertion that a statement is an opinion is equivalent to saying, "I can't show that (statement) is true, but I believe it, anyway." |
That is one possible position that the opiner could take. It would be a stupid one because he would, in effect be making a statement of fact that contradicts his previous statement "I can't show that it is true. The opiner might alternatively state, "It can't be shown that (statement) is true or false, but my opinion is that it will be proven to be true. If shown to be false, my opinion is wrong."Webster: belief
3 a : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on an examination of the grounds for accepting it as true or real : reflective assurance : intellectual assent <belief in the validity of logical propositions and scientific statements> |
Which definition would tend to substantiate your use of the word "believe" in the example above.
However, belief is not necessarily opinion, nor even conviction of truth as the above definition states. Belief has many meanings as Webster is very clear on:Webster: belief
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust, confidence, or reliance is placed in some person or thing : FAITH
2 a : something believed ; specifically : a statement or body of statements held by the advocates of any class of views b : trust in religion : persuasion of the validity of religious ideas <the war of belief against unbelief -- Thomas Caryle> : a statement of religious doctrines believed : CREED |
"I can't show that [statement] is true, but I believe it, anyway." pretty much conforms to this substantially different definition of "belief"| In other words, "in my opinion" is a preface to a declaration of faith, |
It certainly can be, but it does not necessarily have to be, as the two different definitions of belief illustrate. Your use of the word "is" is simply another arrogation not based in fact (adherence to accepted word authority) other than Davemnicience.
| ...and not, as I had previously (and obviously mistakenly) thought,) just a shorthand for saying, "the following assertion of fact may not be as well-supported as I might like." |
Yes, your mistake is obvious. Again, it would be pretty stupid to say, "My opinion is an assertion of fact" First, because an opinion is not an assertion of fact, second because if I have the substantiation to assert facts, why would I express that as opinion? I am quite pleased that you are actually capable of admitting error in reasoning, even though you believe are speaking sarcastically. It is a mistake to say, "the following assertion of fact may not be as well-supported as I might like," nor did I say or imply anything of the sort in this thread.
"In my opinion," properly used, is not a shorthand for anything other than "I am not making a statement of fact. One can certainly state, "my opinion is________. What is your opinion?" And the second person can either give his opinion, possibly quite different; or state, "The facts of this matter are_________." In the second instance, he is completely open to challenge. If the challenge demonstrates that his facts are verifiable by authority, his statement is shown to be not only a claim to fact but actually fact and his position trumps the opinion of the first person. And so forth.
I have no problem skeptically challenging statements of facts, if they seem to be dubious. But to formally challenge an identified opinion which may be a guess, a musing, a hunch; or a preliminary hypothesis as to what the facts of a matter may be, is presumptively foolish. The discussion, investigation, analysis or whatever is transpiring is not at a stage where challenge of opinion as statement of fact is appropriate or useful; as fact may not as yet, even be identified, much less verified.| As someone who calls himself a skeptic, therefore, I will, from now on, seek to eliminate the word "opinion" from my self-references, |
That would be an excellent first step down from the pedestal of pomposity that you currently occupy. At the very least, attempt to identify your statements of opinion when what you are pontificating is, in fact, opinion. And if what you are stating with certainty (as usual) is authoritative fact backed by evidence, simply say so, and very few around here will presume that you are wrong, because you seldom lie, at least intentionally.| and try to remember to point out anyone else's assertions of opinions as failures of critical thinking from the start. |
"Anyones's assertion of opinions" may or may not be an attempt at "critical thinking". If in fact, critical thinking is the intention of the opinion asserter, then they had better define their opinions as such and not statements of or claims to fact. Failure to do that might justify your inflicting one of your spectacular unbridled tongue-lashings upon them until they slunk away in shame at having offended the Oracle.
However, if he identifies his thoughts as opinion also, a discussion can ensue which may lead to a resolution, or a demonstration that one side or the other's opinion is better grounded in fact. Maybe even "Critical Thinking" can take place. Perhaps fact can even be determined by reference to proper authority, once the discussion has dispensed with the "gotchas", and the "show it to me's"!
I have some actual work to do in the real world. I'll try to return tonight or tomorrow to deal with your misstatements of my position in your remarkably defensive commentary to Kil that precedes this posting. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 01:11:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...your stated position that "I am through with you"... |
Got me there.
But wow. Wow!
When I got into this mess, my memory was of you stating your opinions, Dude challenging you, and then you diving into your huffy little semantic game of why you shouldn't have to explain how you came to hold those opinions. But after re-reading, I find that that memory is just completely wrong.
The facts are that you said:| So, unless I am persuaded otherwise, I will consider both your and my view on this subject, uninformed opinion. |
And Dude replied:| Probably a safe position to hold. |
And then in a reply to HalfMooner, you wrote:| If Dude or Humbert can come forward at this point and present substantial evidential data or conclusions derived from credible scientific study clearly demonstrating that my position is untenable, please do so! |
And only in response to that did Dude use the word "claim" in regard to your "opinions."
So, you manufactured the whole thing. Dude agreed with you that you both had nothing more than uninformed opinion on the subject, but you challenged him (unprovoked) to refute your opinion with nothing less than "substantial evidential data or conclusions derived from credible scientific study." But clearly, that's an unreasonably high standard if all you've got is, in your words, "uninformed opinion."
In short, you pleaded with Dude to counter your "flimsy feel-good fuzzypuppy defense" with nothing less than what would be required to refute a scientific conclusion, and then you got all pissy at him for treating your opinion as if it were a claim of fact.
Had I re-read everything back when I jumped in, I probably would have avoided your semantic game, and just called you a troll. A very literate troll, but a troll nonetheless. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 13:07:17 [Permalink]
|
The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.
Apology to ReadersI must apologize to any readers here other than Dave, that the essays that these responses have become are necessary because of the cavalier disregard and dismissal of many salient points that I have made and to which Dave either totally fails to respond, or dismisses with irrelevant pejoratives like "horrible logic", "transparent evasion", "intellectual cowardice" or the like; utterly failing to answer queries of substance like "Why should your definition of the word "Opinion" replace the one from Webster or Wiki?
Dave stated that :
| "In my opinion"_________" is nothing less than the statement of an alleged fact (a "claim") |
Webster states:2.c: Opinion
a view or belief that is not demonstrable as fact, as in "this is only my opinion, of course" |
In addition to contesting his position as absolute authority in the definition of words he uses, I am compelled to respond in kind to his vilification. The homeopathic degree of testosterone than remains in my ancient body still demands that I better him in invective, as he is obviously a rank amateur. I fully understand the juvenility implicit in such conduct, but god damn, it is fun!
I would certainly carry this terminally boring discussion over to PM or e-mail, except for the fact that sensible, mature, objective, grown-up Editor Dave has banned me from personal correspondence with him (I have not tried telephone, telegraph, snailmail, or carrier pigeon because those would entail expenditures on my part and I am famously miserly with my money!)The reasons for such banning likely should remain private because of probable discomfiture that would be inflicted on innocent third parties.
Please feel free to ignore or criticize my pontification, and if you do choose to endure it, you do so at your own risk of terminal satiety. |
Dave......
Because you are no more entitled than your many victims of verbal abuse are to run away from a fight that you started; I will continue to respond to your snarling comments as long as you see fit to make them.
In your supplicative response to Kil's answer to your elusive refusal to recognize authority as to word usage and definition; you begin with this statement of fact (not opinion, apparently, you have not labeled it as such, yet you give no evidence to back your claim) | bngbuck chose definitions in such a way as to make his evasion even more ridiculous, so I was ridiculing him for doing so. |
1. What is the "evasion" that you refer to as "his evasion"?
I evaded nothing , I directly answered your false statement that "opinion is a claim of fact". If you cannot detail what my "evasion" was, drop the accusation.
2. If the above quote of yours is in fact a claim to fact as it appears to be; please demonstrate how the definitions from recognized authority that I chose made my direct response to you appear "more ridiculous". More ridiculous than what? It what way are the definitions pasted directly from Webster and Wiki "ridiculous"?
3. Your statement that you were ridiculing me for being ridiculous fails because I was not being either ridiculous or evasive, I was directly answering your incorrect usage of the word "opinion". Your "ridicule" was not recognized by Kil, as you had to explain it to him, so it failed as ridicule..| According to what he last wrote in this thread, his statement, "In my opinion, captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals," means (in no uncertain terms) "despite the fact that I [bngbuck] cannot show that captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals, I [bngbuck] believe it to be true." |
My use of the phrase "in my opinion" demonstrates clearly that I believe that the statement regarding captivity of wild animals may be true, but I do not know it to be true. This clarification is further enhanced by your immediate inference that I am strongly implying "I cannot show that captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals"
Where you err is in stating that my meaning was, "I believe it to be true. As I have clearly shown by reference to authority that you have not rejected, opinion is not necessarily a statement of fact, especially when a statement is unambiguously defined as "opinion"| This is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the sort of skepticism we've been promoting here, Kil, but that's how bngbuck chose to defend his opinions. |
Wrong! It is only an attitude which advocates the correct use of English words as defined by accepted authority and condemns criticism and calumny based on unsubstantiated assumption about the meaning and usage of words used in discussion and debate! It is an attitude that decries mean-spirited criticism that is not based on anything other than emotional antagonism on the part of the one criticizing, in this instance, you!| If facts are hard to come by to support some position, then the rational response is to avoid taking such a position, |
It follows then, that we should follow the imperative:| "Do not take any position on any matter for which there are no facts, or insufficient facts, to support" |
If scientists were to follow that dictum, how could initial hypotheses (those that have not yet been developed into theory) be formulated?
Hypothesis is a rather specialized subset of Opinion. But making a hypothesis is certainly "taking a position" on a matter to be investigated. And if we are to abandon taking any position that does not have substantive fact to support it, then it would become impossible to test any hypothesis and thereby develop the very facts that may substantiate it; so following the dictum would lead to an inability to pursue scientific investigation of newly observed phenomena.| .....not to whine about that position being challenged even though it was an opinion. |
Stating that a opinion is not a claim to fact is certainly not whining; it is rather a vigorous negation of the challenger's implicit or explicit statement that facts exist which the challenged person cannot produce, because they don't exist - or at the very least, of which the challenged person is unaware, even though the challenged opinion -holder has clearly stated that his position is "only an opinion".
The complete declamatory statement would be: | "It is my opinion that killer whales who are kept in captivity for extended periods are abused animals. I do not know of any controlled studies that have demonstrated this opinion to be valid, but I have observed these animals both in the wild and in captivity, and, to me, they appear to be stressed and anxious in the captive state. I cannot offer factual evidence at this time to support these subjective opinions, as I do not believe such evidence exists." |
If every statement of opinion was required to be phrased such as the above, discourse would become so wordy as to be impractical; as, unfortunately, has become much of what I have had to state here!
Your flat statement that "opinion is alleged fact" is stupid, indefensible, and utterly impractical to apply to ordinary debate or discourse.| "In my opinion" is not a magical mantra to protect a statement from critical examination, |
"Magical mantra" is colorful alliteration but completely of your own invention, I claim no sorcery or incantations, merely adherence to established authority as to word usage and definition. A statement needs no protection from critical examination if it does not purport to claim anything more than ideation or possibility. Critical examination cannot discover fact that does not exist.| ...an examination which usually begins with looking for supporting evidence. If there is none, then the belief in question should be discarded, not excused as being opinion. |
I will tediously point out again that an opinion is not necessarily a belief, particularly in the case where there is no intention to make a claim of fact. And an "opinion in question" cannot be sensibly questioned as to truth claim if it is not claiming truth, merely suggesting that there may be truth in it or that the truth of it may be discovered sometime in the future. Opinion may be any of the above alternatives and more. If the opinion has merit as to the possibility of truth in its object of consideration, it certainly should not be "discarded", as further investigation of the opinion may lead to new knowledge. Here the "burden" of proof rather than being an adversarial epithet directed to the opiner, should properly be a shared exercise between challenger and challenged in searching for possible truth or new knowledge.
Obviously, any opinion is subject to "critical examination". But if the intent of the examination is only to discover a claim to full truth where none, or only a possibility of one exists; and these possibilities are clearly defined (shorthand = "only an opinion"), then the critical examination is useless, futile, and stupid, at that preliminary stage in discussion. When, and if, the opinion becomes a claim to fact and is stated as such, evidence is required.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 22:32:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...from a fight that you started... |
I don't think so....you begin with this statement of fact (not opinion, apparently, you have not labeled it as such, yet you give no evidence to back your claim) | bngbuck chose definitions in such a way as to make his evasion even more ridiculous, so I was ridiculing him for doing so. |
1. What is the "evasion" that you refer to as "his evasion"?
I evaded nothing , I directly answered your false statement that "opinion is a claim of fact". If you cannot detail what my "evasion" was, drop the accusation. |
Your evasion of Dude telling you to go support your own opinions.| 2. If the above quote of yours is in fact a claim to fact as it appears to be; please demonstrate how the definitions from recognized authority that I chose made my direct response to you appear "more ridiculous". More ridiculous than what? It what way are the definitions pasted directly from Webster and Wiki "ridiculous"? |
Your ridiculousness began with your evasion. It was made more ridiculous when the definitions you chose ensured that "opinion" would not be different from "faith claim" in any practical sense.| 3. Your statement that you were ridiculing me for being ridiculous fails because I was not being either ridiculous or evasive... |
From my chair, you were both. And still are.| ...I was directly answering your incorrect usage of the word "opinion". |
And you did so by rendering opinions worthless.| Your "ridicule" was not recognized by Kil, as you had to explain it to him, so it failed as ridicule.. |
I did not know that Kil is the ultimate judge of ridicule. I'd bet that Kil doesn't know he holds such a lofty position, either. Plus, you're still speaking in ignorance of the context.| My use of the phrase "in my opinion" demonstrates clearly that I believe that the statement regarding captivity of wild animals may be true, but I do not know it to be true. This clarification is further enhanced by your immediate inference that I am strongly implying "I cannot show that captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals" |
And per my faulty memory, regardless of the terms he used, Dude's intent was clearly for you to provide the basis upon which you think that that may be true. Instead, you chose to throw the dictionary at him.
Of course, per what actually occurred, you repeatedly qualified your opinion as opinion and then asked Dude to treat it like a scientific claim, and then you threw the dictionary at him when he did.| Where you err is in stating that my meaning was, "I believe it to be true. As I have clearly shown by reference to authority that you have not rejected, opinion is not necessarily a statement of fact, especially when a statement is unambiguously defined as "opinion" |
Actually, the definition you offered said that opinions cannot be demonstrated as facts, a definition I most certainly do reject. Since the only things I know of which cannot be demonstrated as facts are those things which are false and those things which cannot be tested, and your statement is neither known to be false nor does it appear on its face to be untestable, then by the definition you offered, it is not an opinion, no matter how often you claim that it is.| Wrong! It is only an attitude which advocates the correct use of English words as defined by accepted authority and condemns criticism and calumny based on unsubstantiated assumption about the meaning and usage of words used in discussion and debate! |
Then you need to apologize to Dude. But I will keep in mind from now on that within discussions and debates, you will reject any attempted use of metaphor, hyperbole or allegory, regardless of their utility.| It is an attitude that decries mean-spirited criticism that is not based on anything other than emotional antagonism on the part of the one criticizing, in this instance, you! |
Actually, from what I've seen out of you over the past handful of months, you are clearly projecting.It follows then, that we should follow the imperative:| "Do not take any position on any matter for which there are no facts, or insufficient facts, to support" |
If scientists were to follow that dictum, how could initial hypotheses (those that have not yet been developed into theory) be formulated? |
Because observations are facts in support of the hypothesis before testing begins. Say a scientist were to make some observations and form a hypothesis based on those observations and his imagination, and state just the hypothesis to a coworker. If the coworker were to say, "how did you get that idea?" and the scientist were to say, "it's just a hypothesis," he'd be laughed out of the lab. The notion that if untested hypotheses were challenged, the entire scientific enterprise would collapse is flat-out wrong. It's the basis for the grant application process and the job of review boards, and absolutely indispensable! They ask, without the benefit of testing, for the reasons why testing a hypothesis is likely to generate interesting results. If the reasons for forming the hypothesis in the first place are flimsy or have little relation to reality, the likelihood of the hypothesis being correct are slim and should, due to limited time and resources, be rejected.| Hypothesis is a rather specialized subset of Opinion. But making a hypothesis is certainly "taking a position" on a matter to be investigated. And if we are to abandon taking any position that does not have substantive fact to support it, then it would become impossible to test any hypothesis and thereby develop the very facts that may substantiate it; so following the dictum would lead to an inability to pursue scientific investigation of newly observed phenomena. |
Nice strawman you've got there. Perhaps you could show me where I made mention of a requirement of "substantive fact" before holding an opinion. I understand that opinions are held for a variety of reasons, some more "substantive" than others. Dude's "challenge" (which was really yours) was intended to get to those reasons. But you chose to spend days and numerous dictionary quotes on a semantic argument, instead.| Stating that a opinion is not a claim to fact is certainly not whining; it is rather a vigorous negation of the challenger's implicit or explicit statement that facts exist which the challenged person cannot produce, because they don't exist - or at the very least, of which the challenged person is unaware, even though the challenged opinion -holder has clearly stated that his position is "only an opinion". |
Actually, you made a rather explicit challenge to Dude to treat your opinion as if it were a scientific claim. And then you complained when he did.The complete declamatory statement would be: | "It is my opinion that killer whales who are kept in captivity for extended periods are abused animals. I do not know of any controlled studies that have demonstrated this opinion to be valid, but I have observed these animals both in the wild and in captivity, and, to me, they appear to be stressed and anxious in the captive state. I cannot offer factual evidence at this time to support these subjective opinions, as I do not believe such evidence exists." |
If every statement of opinion was required to be phrased such as the above, discourse would become so wordy as to be impractical; as, unfortunately, has become much of what I have had to state here! |
Yes, indeedy. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you'd said "It is my opinion that killer whales who are kept in captivity for extended periods are abused animals," and Dude had asked, "on what basis do you make that claim?" If all that you'd answered with was, "I do not know of any studies, but I have observed these animals both in the wild and in captivity, and, to me, they appear to be stressed and anxious in the captive state," that would have been a fine answer, and probably exactly what would have been requested, and the discussion could have continued from there. "I made no claim!" and offering dictionary dumps to defend your opinion on opinions instead of continuing the discussion of the actual points is evasive, smug and hypocritical of you, and has got us to where we are today in this thread.
The first two parts of the above are what I remembered happening, but of course, that's not what happened at all, is it? No. You offered your opinion, Dude agreed that opinions were all anyone had and then you challenged him to refute your opinion with a level of argument usually reserved for criticisms of scientific works. In response, Dude told you to do your own homework. Correctly.| Your flat statement that "opinion is alleged fact" is stupid, indefensible, and utterly impractical to apply to ordinary debate or discourse. |
If I in any way agreed with your assertion here, then I would have to say that normal debate and science would be impossible.
Perhaps your dictionary has a different definition of "alleged" than mine. I don't see a substantive difference in meaning between "an opinion is an alleged fact" and "an opinion is something which a person thinks may be true." A challenge to an opinion, almost regardless of how it is worded, is nothing more than a request for the opinion-holder to lay out his reasons for holding that opinion, which is how ordinary debates and discourses are held.| "Magical mantra" is colorful alliteration but completely of your own invention, I claim no sorcery or incantations, merely adherence to established authority as to word usage and definition. |
Indeed. I am now aware that metaphor is something else you reject.| A statement needs no protection from critical examination if it does not purport to claim anything more than ideation or possibility. |
The meaning I derive from these words of yours, in the context of the discussion we are having, is that "ideation" and "possibility" are completely divorced from reality. Because if they were in any way based in reality, then one could have reasons for entertaining such hypotheticals. Reasons which could be intelligently discussed and debated beyond "it's just my opinion."| Critical examination cannot discover fact that does not exist. |
That's absolutely correct, which is why "it's just my opinion" is nothing more than a rejection of the discovery of what facts might exist.| I will tediously point out again that an opinion is not necessarily a belief... |
You also cited Webster's New International defining an opinion as "belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge," according to you. Therefore, all opinions are necessarily beliefs. Why are you rejecting the definition that you quoted?| ...particularly in the case where there is no intention to make a claim of fact. |
Then why bother to offer your opinion at all?| And an "opinion in question" cannot be sensibly questioned as to truth claim if it is not claiming truth, merely suggesting that there may be truth in it or that the truth of it may be discovered sometime in the future. |
What's not sensible is denying that questioning an opinion is intended to bring out whatever truth might be behind it, or whatever the opinion-holder may think might be discovered in the future.| Opinion may be any of the above alternatives and more. If the opinion has merit as to the possibility of truth in its object of consideration, it certainly should not be "discarded", as further investigation of the opinion may lead to new knowledge. Here the "burden" of proof rather than being an adversarial epithet directed to the opiner, should properly be a shared exercise between challenger and challenged in searching for possible truth or new knowledge. |
And with your rejection of Dude's challenge, you refused to be a part of that shared exercise. Or that would have been true, if you hadn't been playing semantic games before I even got involved.| Obviously, any opinion is subject to "critical examination". |
Then why did you refuse to critically examine your own opinions, and instead ask someone else do it for you at a level far above what was necessary?| But if the intent of the examination is only to discover a claim to full truth where none, or only a possibility of one exists... |
Another strawman.| ...and these possibilities are clearly defined (shorthand = "only an opinion"), then the critical examination is useless, futile, and stupid, at that preliminary stage in discussion. |
Okay, so you're saying that it was useless, futile and stupid for anyone to ask you why you hold that opinion, which would have been the clear intent here had you been engaged in the discussion in good faith (that was an "idiom," by the way). Given how much time and effort you've spent with dictionary definitions and writing these posts, you're absolutely correct that critically examining your opinion was stupid, useless and futile (but not because it reflects badly upon the examiner). I couldn't have said it better.| When, and if, the opinion becomes a claim to fact and is stated as such, evidence is required. |
And now you're saying that your observations aren't "evidence," even in the relaxed atmosphere that existed in this thread (due to the unequivocal agreement from one of the other people in the discussion that opinions are all that anyone has on the subject). Clearly, in context, it looks like you just didn't want to admit that "that's how it looks to me" was all the support you had for your opinion after you'd asked your admittedly casual interlocutors to dismantle your position as if it were a well-supported conclusion. Your desired result, the furthering of the original discussion, seems to have been completely forgotten, by you, in your quixotic quest for proper word use despite your explicit shift of the context from laid-back to scientific.
If this is what you really wanted, fine by me, and no apologies needed to anyone else, since your posts here are providing a valuable object lesson that demanding strict adherence to dictionary entries in the face of the existence of idiom and metaphor (and examining words instead of gleaning meaning from whole sentences or posts) is a good way to embarrass yourself. I'd very much prefer that people who read these forums not do as you are doing in their discussions with other people, with whom they hope to have a rational and fruitful discussion (or maybe even convince them of something). So thank you for providing an example of what not to do, bngbuck. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 03:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave.......
In your second, insulting reply to Kil, you state:| bngbuck chose definitions in such a way as to make his evasion even more ridiculous, so I was ridiculing him for doing so. |
If you will please provide links to at least three (as I "chose" for you) accepted dictionary references or encyclopedia definitions that define "opinion" as identical to a "claim of fact", and only that; I will immediately concede the entire argument to you. You have stated:| "In my opinion..." and "I think it is true that..." are synonymous phrasings. And "I think it is true that..." is nothing less than the statement of an alleged fact (a "claim"). |
This is exactly the same as stating:| Opinion is a statement of fact |
No exceptions, no qualifications, no ridicule; just a flat declaratory statement that Opinion is a statement of fact. Prove it! By quoting accepted authority as to word definition and usage. Three of them, as I gave you! Choose three definitions that clearly state that Opinion is synonomous with and mutually inclusive with Fact.| his (bng's) statement, "In my opinion, captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals," means (in no uncertain terms) "despite the fact that I [bngbuck] cannot show that captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals, I [bngbuck] believe it to be true." |
In extemely certain terms I state that I neither believe or disbelieve it to be true, I do not know of fact nor am I making a claim to fact. You can not possibly know of what I believe except as I tell you. So your statement is false.| This is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the sort of skepticism we've been promoting here, Kil, but that's how bngbuck chose to defend his opinions. |
My "attitude" has nothing to do with skepticism, it has to do with an outrageously arrogant assumption that your definition of a word is superior to stated authority. What your statement says to me is: "Kil, my authority as to what skepticism is here at SFN is absolute; and if you disagree with me, your skepticism is flawed!" Kil not only did not choose to see your post as ridicule, (obviously, you felt you had to explain it to him) he also saw it as insult, which it was! In your third apologetic to Kil you make a declaratory, dogmatic statement in response to......Originally posted by Kil
But it's ridiculous to argue that unless we can fully support an opinion, which wouldn't be an opinion if we had enough evidence or facts to back it up, than we just shouldn't take a position. |
Dave:
It is ridiculous to make such an argument, so please don't suggest that I've ever held such a position. |
Kil doesn't have to suggest anything, here is your statement:| If facts are hard to come by to support some position, then the rational response is to avoid taking such a position, |
and| If there is no evidence, then the belief in question should be discarded, |
Opinions without evidence may have value in stimulating a search for the evidence which would support them. As you have stated in your false retraction above, they should not necessarily be discarded!| My objection was never because bngbuck couldn't "fully support" his statement, it was because he said, in essence, he didn't have to support it at all, simply because it was an opinion. |
This is obfuscation pure and simple. Your statement was - if an opinion cannot be substantiated by fact, it should be discarded or never stated in the first place. I clearly stated that explanations of reasons for opinions were appropriate, but not of opinions that had no claim to fact. Kil did not say anything about whether or not I could not fully support my opinion. He said that it was ridiculous to take a position that "unless we can fully support an opinion, which wouldn't be an opinion if we had enough evidence or facts to back it up, than we just shouldn't take a position." And he is completely correct, which you had to cringingly concede!| It's old ground that you still seem to misunderstand. I'm not arguing for the elimination of opinions, I'm arguing for the elimination of "it's just an opinion" as a method of dodging the examination of an opinion. |
You are arguing for a mistaken definition of "opinion is a statement of fact", and "if opinion cannot be factually justified, it should not be given"Kil said:
By the way, I can't believe you just questioned my skeptic credentials... |
Dave answered
I can't believe it, either! |
Believe it! It's perfectly obvious!Kil
...because I don't consider opinions to be as strong as claims of fact, on the continuum |
Dave
Since I don't believe that, either |
Bullshit! Why did you say it then? Twice!| No, bngbuck was giving himself a pass. |
I have no idea what you mean by "a pass"! It it similar to you giving yourself carte blanche to define words to your own liking?| You're referring to the statements I made when taking bngbuck's horrible logic and definitions to their proper, absurd conclusion. Those statements were over-the-top because I was ridiculing bngbuck's absurd argument, and said so in the first sentence of my previous reply to you. |
Yeah, yeah, of course, it was all "ridicule", you didn't mean it, and you certainly didn't have to point it out in painful detail...yet you did! Kil squarely defines where you are truly over the top, and is where you state multiple times, "Opinion is statement of fact" without qualification, elaboration, refinement of statement or explanation of that absurd statement and its lack of corroboration by any authority. except you, of course!
Thanks for your robust demonstration of Pavlovian response theory. It's late, and I can't return until tomorrow night, but I cannot wait to deconstruct your two most recent commentaries, I will whistle, and hear you come running.
Sooner or later I would like to get back to substance, like what are the qualitative differences between man and animals, but as long as you want to play semantic scrabble, it works for me! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 07:13:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
In your second, insulting reply to Kil, you state:| bngbuck chose definitions in such a way as to make his evasion even more ridiculous, so I was ridiculing him for doing so. |
If you will please provide links to at least three (as I "chose" for you) accepted dictionary references or encyclopedia definitions that define "opinion" as identical to a "claim of fact", and only that; I will immediately concede the entire argument to you. You have stated:| "In my opinion..." and "I think it is true that..." are synonymous phrasings. And "I think it is true that..." is nothing less than the statement of an alleged fact (a "claim"). |
This is exactly the same as stating:| Opinion is a statement of fact |
No exceptions, no qualifications, no ridicule; just a flat declaratory statement that Opinion is a statement of fact. |
Yes, if you strip out the qualifying language that I've been careful to use, then it does become a "flat declaratory statement," doesn't it?| Prove it! By quoting accepted authority as to word definition and usage. Three of them, as I gave you! Choose three definitions that clearly state that Opinion is synonomous with and mutually inclusive with Fact. |
First, you will have to explain to me how supporting a position that I've never held will somehow further my goals in this discussion.| his (bng's) statement, "In my opinion, captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals," means (in no uncertain terms) "despite the fact that I [bngbuck] cannot show that captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals, I [bngbuck] believe it to be true." |
In extemely certain terms I state that I neither believe or disbelieve it to be true, I do not know of fact nor am I making a claim to fact. You can not possibly know of what I believe except as I tell you. So your statement is false. |
Except as you have told me.| This is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the sort of skepticism we've been promoting here, Kil, but that's how bngbuck chose to defend his opinions. |
My "attitude" has nothing to do with skepticism, it has to do with an outrageously arrogant assumption that your definition of a word is superior to stated authority. What your statement says to me is: "Kil, my authority as to what skepticism is here at SFN is absolute; and if you disagree with me, your skepticism is flawed!" |
Well, by changing the referent to whatever you want it to be (instead of to what I was actually referring) you can make any statement mean anything you want it to mean. My statement referred to a different attitude of yours, and had nothing to do with the pompous idiocy that you wish I had proclaimed.| Kil not only did not choose to see your post as ridicule, (obviously, you felt you had to explain it to him)... |
And I'm pretty sure I know why.| ...he also saw it as insult, which it was! |
I still do not know why Kil found a statement about you to be insulting to him, and he's not talking about it anymore.In your third apologetic to Kil you make a declaratory, dogmatic statement in response to......Originally posted by Kil
But it's ridiculous to argue that unless we can fully support an opinion, which wouldn't be an opinion if we had enough evidence or facts to back it up, than we just shouldn't take a position. |
Dave:
It is ridiculous to make such an argument, so please don't suggest that I've ever held such a position. |
|
Wow, asking Kil politely to not attack a strawman of my position is a "declaratory, dogmatic statement?!"Kil doesn't have to suggest anything, here is your statement:| If facts are hard to come by to support some position, then the rational response is to avoid taking such a position, |
and| If there is no evidence, then the belief in question should be discarded, |
|
If you do not understand the difference between a fully supported position and a position for which there is no support at all, then nothing I can say will convince you of anything, bngbuck.| Opinions without evidence may have value in stimulating a search for the evidence which would support them. |
How? Explain to me how an opinion which was formed in an evidenciary vacuum can stimulate a search for anything.| As you have stated in your false retraction above, they should not necessarily be discarded! |
I never made any such retraction. Opinions without reference to reality (those without any support) should be discarded.| My objection was never because bngbuck couldn't "fully support" his statement, it was because he said, in essence, he didn't have to support it at all, simply because it was an opinion. |
This is obfuscation pure and simple. |
I can see how to you, the truth is obfuscatory.| Your statement was - if an opinion cannot be substantiated by fact, it should be discarded or never stated in the first place. I clearly stated that explanations of reasons for opinions were appropriate, but not of opinions that had no claim to fact. |
The blinders you've put on to the context of this discussion certainly are very opaque.| Kil did not say anything about whether or not I could not fully support my opinion. He said that it was ridiculous to take a position that "unless we can fully support an opinion, which wouldn't be an opinion if we had enough evidence or facts to back it up, than we just shouldn't take a position." And he is completely correct, which you had to cringingly concede! |
"Cringingly concede?" No, I've agreed with Kil's statement from the start.| You are arguing for a mistaken definition of "opinion is a statement of fact"... |
No, that's your straw man version of what I've been arguing.| ...and "if opinion cannot be factually justified, it should not be given" |
Not even held. I don't see why, in the context of this thread, what I've said is the least bit controversial.Kil said:
By the way, I can't believe you just questioned my skeptic credentials... |
Dave answered
I can't believe it, either! |
Believe it! It's perfectly obvious! |
Repeating your assertion will not make it come true.Kil
...because I don't consider opinions to be as strong as claims of fact, on the continuum |
Dave
Since I don't believe that, either |
Bullshit! Why did you say it then? Twice! |
You putting words in my mouth doesn't make the position mine.| ...where you state multiple times, "Opinion is statement of fact" without qualification, elaboration, refinement of statement or explanation of that absurd statement... |
And now, you are simply lying. I've been careful to qualify my position, and I've elaborated on it and refined it numerous times in this thread. You've quoted me doing so, so it'll be difficult for you to make a case for ignorance instead of willful dishonesty.| ...as long as you want to play semantic scrabble... |
As I have demonstrated, you started it before I even joined in. [Shrug.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 12:17:15 [Permalink]
|
I have had a difference of opinion with both Dude and to a lesser extent Dave on how much we can ask of the holder of an opinion, and whether or how much it constitutes a claim to a fact, and how much support is necessary to legitimately hold a particular opinion, for sometime now. I was debating the issue with Dude a few years ago, especially over qualifying statements, when the example I was using, Bgal, torpedoed my argument by doing exactly what Dude was, at least in part, arguing against doing. I too do not think opinions are something to hide behind and they are most certainly subject to challenge. The question for me is one of qualifying statements and opinions lower placement on the continuum that leads to a claim of fact, and how much can be expected from the opinion holder to support an opinion.
Here’s the thing. If we want to have an opinion argument and its relationship to critical thinking that I would take part in, it would have to be in another thread with opinions as the subject of the thread. I’m not comfortable being used in this argument. The comments I made were of a narrow focus, and were not meant to support one side over the other. (Just so you know, Bill, I don’t actually think Dave was questioning my credentials as a skeptic, and I can see that I created a strawman of what Dave was really saying. It was an emotional response and I should have re-read what he wrote before responding.)
Dave in particular, knows that I don’t fully agree with him on the subject of opinions, or at least, there are still fuzzy areas that remain unsettled.
Bottom line is that I’m asking you guys to leave me out of this. So stop it.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 14:34:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bottom line is that I’m asking you guys to leave me out of this. So stop it. |
Absolutely. I apologize. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 01:47:18 [Permalink]
|
Kil......
Most of my life I have been immersed in the world of business, largely as an entrepeneur, but also as an employee. I have served in all positions - owner, manager, subordinate employee. Although SFN is not a business (instead of money, it apparently runs on air, some of it hot) you, as co-owner of SFN, have a situation here of a valued employee and friend, Dave, involved in an apparent donnybrook with a circumstantial cyberfriend of yours, me. What a shemozzle! I do understand your discomfort!
David, my interests in SFN are, in order; entertainment, exercise, and education. Entertainment, because I still retain the sophomoric delight I had in college in playing word games with those having both inferior and superior talents similar to mine. Exercise of the mental muscle is mandatory for octogenarians. Use it or you lose it! Education is available here every day from intelligent, informed, occasionally expert members of this small, but remarkably talented Forum.
So I have some vested interest here, but nothing to approach that of Dave's. He has a job, albeit without pay. All I have is some significant free benefits.
Dave has abjectly (with the use of the word absolutely) apologized for what it is that you see that is errant in his behavior. If I were he, and if I really liked what I was doing, (which he does); I would do the same thing.
I, however, am not your employee. I have no apologies of any sort to make, nor do I make any! You commented, without provocation, in the thread; but quite appropiately I thought. I stated so, and agreed with your position. Dave demurred, as he would had if I had opined that the sun rises in the east. And soon it appeared to you that you were being used by one or the other as a foil in the game. That was not my intention, I truly agreed with your comment. But I do understand your discomfort with being on the battlefield with two adversaries, both of which with whom you had a personal connection.
You have demanded, because of reasons totally unrelated to the issues under discussion in the thread, that I make no more reference to you in this thread. Although I am not in any way subject to your demands, I will go you one better, I will make no more comment in this thread, period: although there is much more to say. There will be a time and place to say it in the future!
I will accede to your demand....... not because you demand it, as you have no license to demand anything from me; but because you own the forum on which my comments appear. In business, it is the Golden Rule - he who has the gold, rules! In cyberspace, it is only fair to observe the same imperative - he who owns the cyberspace, controls what transpires in it!
As far as Dave is concerned, I am sure that he will give me ample opportunity for entertainment in the future as he continues to declaim foolishness such as "Opinion IS claim to fact"
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 02:19:03 [Permalink]
|
The problem with opinion in an argument is simple. For example: You are discussing with your wife where to budget some money for household upkeep, both of you are going to have different opinions on where the money should be spent. Those are actual opinions.
However, when you qualify a defacto claim of fact as "my opinion", you aren't actually stating an opinion, you are trying to shield your claim of fact from criticism.
So when you say that captive animals are being abused by their very captivity and add "in my opinion"... well, you are just being a cowardly ass who doesn't want to examine (or have examined) the claim you just made.
Some things are not opinions, no matter how often or loudly you say they are.
And really, no opinion of any sort has a place in a skeptics forum.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 06:24:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The problem with opinion in an argument is simple. For example: You are discussing with your wife where to budget some money for household upkeep, both of you are going to have different opinions on where the money should be spent. Those are actual opinions. |
But they're still justifiable, and questions like "why do you think pet food is more important than diapers?" need to be answered with more than, "it's just my opinion." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 06:29:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
There will be a time and place to say it in the future! |
Anytime you feel like answering for your lies, straw-men, rejection of authoritative dictionary definitions, quote mining and other baloney, be sure to let me know. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 10:30:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
The problem with opinion in an argument is simple. For example: You are discussing with your wife where to budget some money for household upkeep, both of you are going to have different opinions on where the money should be spent. Those are actual opinions. |
But they're still justifiable, and questions like "why do you think pet food is more important than diapers?" need to be answered with more than, "it's just my opinion."
|
Well yes, obviously.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How could this happen!
